Cases of Interest

On December 5, 2023, the parties in the action Adrian Dominican Sisters, et al. v. Smith, et al., Case No. A-23-882774-B, filed a Verified Stockholder Derivative Complaint (the “Complaint”) [LINK TO COMPLAINT] in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada.

Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. stockholders, members of the public, and press inquiries should direct all questions about the Complaint to Newman Ferrara attorneys Jeffrey Norton (jnorton@nfllp.com) or Benjamin Baker (bbaker@nfllp.com).

On March 21, 2023, the parties in the action Solak v. Mates, et al. (Intra-Cellular Derivative Litigation), Index No. 652377/2022, filed an Amended Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement (the “Settlement”) [CLICK HERE TO VIEW SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT], which sets forth the terms and conditions for the proposed settlement and dismissal with prejudice of the action, subject to review and approval by the Court and upon notice of the current stockholders of Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. (“Intra-Cellular” or the “Company”) [CLICK HERE TO VIEW AMENDED NOTICE].

On April 12, 2022, Justice Melissa A. Crane of the Supreme Court for the State of New York, New York County, Commercial Division entered a scheduling order which set a date to consider approval of the Settlement (the “Settlement Hearing”), which shall be held on July 17, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. ET in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, New York County Courthouse, 60 Centre St., New York, New York 10007. At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will: (a) determine whether the proposed Settlement, on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement, is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of Intra-Cellular and its current stockholders; (b) determine whether the Court should finally approve the Settlement and enter the Order and Final Judgment as provided in the Settlement, dismissing the Action with prejudice and extinguishing and releasing the Released Claims; (c) hear and determine any objections to the proposed Settlement; (d) determine whether the Court should approve Plaintiff’s Fee and Expense Application; and (e) rule on such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. [CLICK HERE TO VIEW SCHEDULING ORDER].

Intra-Cellular shareholders with questions about the Settlement should contact Newman Ferrara partner Jeffrey M. Norton at (212) 619-5400 or by email at jnorton@nfllp.com.

On May 26, 2022, the parties in the action Solak v. Rochford, et al. (Ring Derivative Litigation), No. 3:19-cv-00410-MMD-CSD, filed a Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement (the “Settlement”) [CLICK HERE TO VIEW SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT], which sets forth the terms and conditions for the proposed settlement and dismissal with prejudice of the action, subject to review and approval by the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 and upon notice of the current stockholders of Ring Energy, Inc. (“Ring” or the “Company”) [CLICK HERE TO VIEW NOTICE].

On June 2, 2022, Chief Judge Miranda M. Du of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada entered a scheduling order which set a date to consider approval of the Settlement (the “Settlement Hearing”), which shall be held on August 9, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. PST in the Bruce R. Thompson Federal Courthouse, 400 S. Virginia St., Reno, Nevada, 89501, or via Zoom videoconference. At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will: (a) determine whether the proposed Settlement, on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement, is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of Ring and its current stockholders; (b) determine whether the Court should finally approve the Settlement and enter the Order and Final Judgment as provided in the Settlement, dismissing the Action with prejudice and extinguishing and releasing the Released Claims; (c) hear and determine any objections to the proposed Settlement; (d) determine whether the Court should approve Plaintiff’s Fee and Expense Application; and (e) rule on such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. [CLICK HERE TO VIEW SCHEDULING ORDER].

Ring shareholders with questions about the Settlement should contact Newman Ferrara partner Jeffrey M. Norton at (212) 619-5400 or by email at jnorton@nfllp.com.

On January 13, 2021, the parties in the action Solak v. Sato, et al. (Denali Derivative Litigation), C.A. No.: 2020-0775-JTL, filed a Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement (the “Settlement”) [CLICK HERE TO VIEW SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT], which sets forth the terms and conditions for the proposed settlement and dismissal with prejudice of the action, subject to review and approval by the Court pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 and upon notice of the current stockholders of Denali Therapeutics, Inc. (“Denali” or the “Company”) [CLICK HERE TO VIEW NOTICE].

On January 21, 2021, Vice Chancellor Laster of the Delaware Court of Chancery entered a scheduling order which set a date to consider approval of the Settlement (the “Settlement Hearing”), which shall be held on April 16, 2021, at 1:30 p.m. via Zoom video conferencing. At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will: (a) determine whether the proposed Settlement, on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement, is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of Denali and its current stockholders; (b) determine whether the Court should finally approve the Settlement and enter the Order and Final Judgment as provided in the Settlement, dismissing the Action with prejudice and extinguishing and releasing the Released Claims; (c) hear and determine any objections to the proposed Settlement; (d) determine whether the Court should approve Plaintiff’s Fee and Expense Application; and (e) rule on such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. [CLICK HERE TO VIEW SCHEDULING ORDER].

Denali shareholders with questions about the Settlement should contact Newman Ferrara partner Jeffrey M. Norton at (212) 619-5400 or by email at jnorton@nfllp.com.

On December 1, 2018, the parties in the action Carlos Alonso Cano v. David R. Guyer M.D. et al. (Ophthotech Deriv. Litigation), Index. No. 650601/2018, filed a Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement (the “Settlement”) [CLICK HERE TO VIEW SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT], which sets forth the terms and conditions for the proposed settlement and dismissal with prejudice of the action, subject to review and approval by the Supreme Court for the State of New York, and upon notice of the current stockholders of Ophthotech Corporation (“Ophthotech” or the “Company”) [CLICK HERE TO VIEW NOTICE].

On December 4, 2018, the Hon. Saliann Scarpulla, Justice of the Supreme Court for the State of New York, entered a scheduling order which set a date to consider approval of the Settlement (the “Settlement Hearing”), which shall be held on March 12, 2019, at 10:00 AM in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, New York County Courthouse, Room 208, 60 Centre St, New York, New York 10007. At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will: (a) determine whether the proposed Settlement, on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement, is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of Ophthotech and its current stockholders; (b) determine whether the Court should finally approve the Settlement and enter the Order and Final Judgment as provided in the Settlement, dismissing the Action with prejudice and extinguishing and releasing the Released Claims; (c) hear and determine any objections to the proposed Settlement; (d) determine whether the Court should approve Plaintiff’s Fee and Expense Application; and (e) rule on such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. [CLICK HERE TO VIEW SCHEDULING ORDER].

Ophthotech shareholders with questions about the Settlement should contact Newman Ferrara partner Jeffrey M. Norton at (212) 619-5400 or by email at jnorton@nfllp.com.

On June 4, 2018, the parties in the action Fulton v. Dipp, et al. (OvaScience Derivative Litigation), Index. No. 1:17-cv-0869, filed a Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement (the “Settlement”) [CLICK HERE TO VIEW SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT], which sets forth the terms and conditions for the proposed settlement and dismissal with prejudice of the action, subject to review and approval by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 23.1 and upon notice of the current stockholders of OvaScience, Inc. (“OvaScience” or the “Company”) [CLICK HERE TO VIEW NOTICE].

On June 6, 2018, the Hon. Robert D. Mariani, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (sitting by designation), entered a scheduling order which set a date to consider approval of the Settlement (the “Settlement Hearing”), which shall be held on August 30, 2018, at 11:00 AM in the United States Courthouse, 235 N. Washington Ave., Scranton, Pennsylvania. At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will: (a) determine whether the proposed Settlement, on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement, is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of OvaScience and its current stockholders; (b) determine whether the Court should finally approve the Settlement and enter the Order and Final Judgment as provided in the Settlement, dismissing the Action with prejudice and extinguishing and releasing the Released Claims; (c) hear and determine any objections to the proposed Settlement; (d) determine whether the Court should approve Plaintiff’s Fee and Expense Application; and (e) rule on such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. [CLICK HERE TO VIEW SCHEDULING ORDER].

OvaScience shareholders with questions about the Settlement should contact Newman Ferrara partner Jeffrey M. Norton at (212) 619-5400 or by email at jnorton@nfllp.com.

On February 26, 2018, the parties in the action Solak v. Barrett, et al. (Clovis Derivative Litigation), CA No. 2017-0362-JRS, filed a Stipulation of Compromise and Settlement (the “Settlement”) [CLICK HERE TO VIEW SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT], which sets forth the terms and conditions for the proposed settlement and dismissal with prejudice of the action, subject to review and approval by the Court pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 23.1 and upon notice of

the current stockholders of Clovis Oncology, Inc. (“Clovis” or the “Company”) [CLICK HERE TO VIEW NOTICE].

On March 9, 2018, Vice Chancelor Slights of the Delaware Court of Chancery entered a scheduling order which set a date to consider approval of the Settlement (the “Settlement Hearing”), which shall be held on May 30, 2018, at 2:00 p.m., in the Court of Chancery, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will: (a) determine whether the proposed Settlement, on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement, is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of Clovis and its current stockholders; (b) determine whether the Court should finally approve the Settlement and enter the Order and Final Judgment as provided in the Settlement, dismissing the Action with prejudice and extinguishing and releasing the Released Claims; (c) hear and determine any objections to the proposed Settlement; (d) determine whether the Court should approve Plaintiff’s Fee and Expense Application; and (e) rule on such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. [CLICK HERE TO VIEW SCHEDULING ORDER].

Clovis shareholders with questions about the Settlement should contact Newman Ferrara partner Jeffrey M. Norton at (212) 619-5400 or by email at jnorton@nfllp.com.

SIGN THE PETITION SUPPORTING THIS ACTION BY CLICKING HERE

Together with the Seelig Law Offices, Newman Ferrara represents current and former members of the Correction Officers' Benevolent Association ("COBA") who have brought this action derivatively on behalf of the COBA General Fund and the COBA Annuity Fund -- two investment funds overseen by the COBA Executive Board of Directors ("COBA Executive Board") -- against the members of the COBA Executive Board and COBA's former president, Norman Seabrook.

In sum, the Complaint alleges that Seabrook and the COBA Executive Board breached their fiduciary duty to properly oversee and manage the COBA plans for the benefit of COBA's members which resulted in the loss of tens of millions of dollars of plan assets.

In addition, the complaint charges that Seabrook, who has been indicted for taking kick-backs, conspired with others, including the principals of the now-disgraced hedge fund Platinum Partners, to invest tens of millions of COBA's assets in what appears to be a Ponzi scheme run by Platinum Partners.

Despite the massive damage done to COBA by Seabrooks's criminal conduct, COBA's Executive Board continues to pay Mr. Seabrook's criminal defense costs using COBA funds. In fact, despite demands and even a preliminary injunction motion made to prevent those paymets, the COBA Executive Board refuses to cease covering those costs.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) as well as various state law claims.

Those seeking a copy of the complaint can download it above. Those looking for more information about this case may contact attorneys Jeffrey Norton at (212) 619-5400 or Phil Seelig at (212) 766-0600.

Newman Ferrara maintains a diverse New York practice with attorneys specializing in complex commercial and multi-party litigation with an emphasis on securities and shareholder litigation, consumer protection, civil rights, and real estate. For more information, please visit the firm website at www.nfllp.com.

Seelig Law Offices is a full-service New York City law firm assisting clients with an array of services, including Social Security disability, disability pensions, civil service matters, discrimination matters, personal injury, and employment law. For more information, please visit the firm website at www.pseeliglaw.com.

Newman Ferrara Files Class Action Against Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc. for Marketing and Selling Defective "Pro Diver" Watches That Lack Water Resistance

NEW YORK, November 23, 2016 (BUSINESS WIRE) – Newman Ferrara LLP announced today that the firm filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc. ("Invicta") on behalf of purchasers of the Invicta Pro Diver Series Watches ("Pro Diver Watches"). The action, entitled Felice v. Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc., 16-cv-62772-RLR, alleges violations of the Magnuson-Moss Act, a federal product warranty statute, as well as claims under Florida's deceptive practices and false adverting laws, and common law claims for breach of express warranty.

Invicta, one of the world's largest watch manufacturers, markets and sells the Pro Diver Watches both directly and indirectly through numerous retail partners. The Pro Diver Watches, which sell for between $75 and $250, are advertised as water sports watches, suitable for diving and serious water activity, with various models purporting to have water resistance from depths of 50 meters to 300 meters (i.e., 165 to 984 feet). In truth, the Pro Diver Watches are prone to leakage at any depth and in connection with non-marine activities where the product is exposed to water. Pro Diver Watches regularly experience condensation under the watch crystal and malfunction due to exposure to moisture. Despite years of complaints and negative product reviews by purchasers of the Pro Diver Watches who experienced this particular defect, Invicta has taken no steps to remedy the problem. This lawsuit seeks to address that failure.

Any one who purchased or owns a Pro Diver Watch and experienced a lack of water resistance may contact Newman Ferrara attorneys Jeffrey Norton (jnorton@nfllp.com) or Roger Sachar (rsachar@nfllp.com) to obtain information about this case or learn more about their rights.

Newman Ferrara maintains a multifaceted practice based in New York City with attorneys specializing in complex commercial and multi-party litigation, securities fraud and shareholder litigation, consumer protection, civil rights, and real estate. For more information, please visit the firm website at www.nfllp.com.

CONTACT:

Newman Ferrara LLP
Jeffrey M. Norton
1250 Broadway, 27th Fl.
New York, NY 10001
Tel: (212) 619-5400

The firm represents Justin Kuchma, who was physically and sexually abused by a correction officer on May 29, 2016, while awaiting trial at Rikers Island. Mr. Kuchma protested the use of a racial slur used by the correction officer directed at another inmate. The officer retaliated against Mr. Kuchma by sexually assaulting and beating him, while using homosexual slurs, in the presence of other correction officers and a supervisor. Mr. Kuchma sustained several contusions as a result, and also suffers varying psychological effects from the incident. The lawsuit names the City of New York and five correction officers.

Press:

NBC 4 New York, Rikers Guard Under Investigation Over Sex Assault Allegation, Facebook Posts, published August 16, 2016 http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Rikers-Island-New-York-City-NYC-Guard-Accused-of-Sex-Assault-Facebook-Posts-390343251.html

ABC 7 New York, Rikers inmate alleges correction officer sex abuse, published June 30, 2016: http://abc7ny.com/news/investigators-exclusive-rikers-inmate-alleges-guard-sex-abuse/1405543/

NY Post, Inmate says Rikers guard sexually assaulted him while others watched, published June 29, 2016: http://nypost.com/2016/06/29/inmate-says-rikers-guard-sexually-assaulted-him-while-others-watched/

Gothamist, Rikers Inmate Says A Guard Sexually Assaulted Him After He Objected To Racial Slur, published June 29, 2016: http://gothamist.com/2016/06/29/rikers_sexual_assault_lawsuit.php

NY Daily News, New York City inmate claims jail guard grabbed his crotch as payback for verbal dispute, plans to sue for $6M, published June 28, 2016: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-inmate-plans-sue-6m-crotch-grabbing-incident-article-1.2691973

UPDATE: Amended Complaint filed on October 25, 2017. Available for download.

This class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Lennen v. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., et al., 6:16-cv-0855), was filed on behalf of purchasers of Marriott timeshare interests in Marriott's points-based Marriott Vacation Club program (the "MVC Product") and owners of Marriott's tradtional week-to-week timeshares ("Legacy Timeshares").

In sum, the action involves allegations that Defendants, through a series of convoluted and patently illegal transactions, engaged (and continue to engage) in a scheme to convey illusory real property ownership interests to purchasers of the MVC Product. While purchase of the MVC Product is said to convey both title to a Florida timeshare estate and a beneficial interest in a Florida land trust, it, in fact, conveys neither. In reality, the MVC Product conveys to its purchasers nothing more than a simple awards program prodiving access to selected Marriott-owned timeshares throughout the country. The purpose of packaging the MVC Product as a real estate transaction is simple: the product provides significant opportunities for revenue that would not otherwise exist in connection with an awards program of this nature or even, for that matter, with the sale of Legacy Timeshares of the type Marriott has sold for decades.

The Complaint names as defendants Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation, d/b/a Marriott Vacation Club, Marriott Resorts Travel Company, Inc., d/b/a MVC Exchange Company (collectively, "Marriott," unless identified specifically), Marriott Title Insurance, MVC Owners Association, First American Financial, First American Trust, FSB, First American Title Company (collectively, "First American"), Orange County Florida, and Orange County Comptroller, Martha O. Haynie (collectively "Defendants"), for claims including violations of the Florida Vacation and Timeshare Act, § 721.01, Fla. Stats., et seq., the Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("Florida RICO"), § 895.01, et seq., for common law claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, and for declaratory and injunctive relief.

While Marriott, First American, and others have profited greatly from sales of the MVC Product, purchasers of the MVC Product continue to suffer the consequences of the deception. For one, MVC Owners are deprived of any of the benefits of real-property ownership while shouldering all the burdens, costs, and fees as if they had such title. Moreover, purchasers continue to suffer harm as a result of Marriott's opaque and discretionary point-valuation process, which results in significant dilution and lacks any reliable metric for tracking their so-called beneficial interests, as well as Marriott's unfettered process of adding and restricting access to properties in the underlying land trust.

Finally, as Defendants continue to exploit and profit from the MVC Product owners of Legacy Timeshares aslo suffer due to continued and increasing interference with their and actual ownership interests and Marriott's unlawful exchange and reservation procedures that restrict their ability to use and enjoy their ownership rights.

Plaintiffs in this action are purchasers of both the MVC Product and owners of Legacy Timeshares. They are represented by Newman Ferrara LLP, Soomi Kim, Esq., and the Polaszek Law Firm, PLLC.

CONTACT:

Newman Ferrara LLP
Jeffrey M. Norton
jnorton@nfllp.com
1250 Broadway, 27th Fl.
New York, NY 10001
Tel: (212) 619-5400

On February 11, 2016, Newman Ferrara filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Airbnb, Inc. ("Airbnb" or the "Company) for violations of New York law. The lawsuit, entitled Plazza v. Airbnb, Inc., 16-cv-01085, alleges that Airbnb has engaged and continues to engage in illegal real estate broker transactions in violation of Sec. 440 of New York Real Property Law (NYRPL) as well as Sec. 349 of New York General Business Law.

Through its website, www.airbnb.com, Airbnb lists and advertises property available for rent in New York (and other cities around the world), facilitates the rental transactions, including procuring the rental agreements and processing rental payments, and takes fees and/or commissions for its services. NYRPL Sec. 440 unambiguously requires individuals and entities who engage in these activities to maintain a New York State-issued real estate broker's license. Nevertheless, Airbnb does not presently and has never had such a license. Consequently, the fees and commissions the Company has charged are illegal.

If you paid any fee, commission, or rent to any website providing access to short-term and vacation rentals in New York, including airbnb.com, vrbo.com, homeaway.com, roomarama.com, or some other short-term/vacation rental website, you may contact us to inquire about your rights or our ongoing investigation regarding these online rental services.

The attorneys handling this matter are Lucas A. Ferrara (lferrara@nfllp.com), Jeffrey Norton (jnorton@nfllp.com) and Danielle Sullivan (dsullivan@nfllp.com).

On November 16, 2015, the firm filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Quest Diagnostics, Inc. ("Quest") and others for their role in a massive breach of patient privacy.

The lawsuit, entitled Jane Doe v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., et al., 15-cv-8992 (LGS), alleges that, for as long as a year, hundreds of medical records, containing the personal and protected data of patients in and around the New York area, were being transmitted to a Brooklyn-based marketing firm – rather than to Quest, the intended recipient. Although Quest was alerted early on to the breach, the company did nothing to prevent the continued transmissions, failed to alert medical providers and patients, and failed to report the breach to authorities. As a result, the personal and sensitive medical information of hundreds of patients was disclosed to unauthorized third-parties, putting their security and privacy at great risk.

Under both federal and state law, it is a violation of law to send protected medical data to unauthorized third-parties. When breaches are discovered, medical service providers such as Quest are required to provide immediate notice to individuals affected. Entities are also required to report such breaches to the Department of Health and Human Services, notify other providers affected or involved in the breach, and alert major media outlets when greater than 500 people are affected. In this case, Quest did nothing.

"That Quest was on notice of this massive data breach for perhaps a year or more, and yet failed to take any responsible or required action, amounts to an egregious dereliction of duty," stated firm partner, Jeffrey Norton. "Through this lawsuit, we intend to make sure something like this does not occur again."

Just a day after this action was filed, on November 17, 2015, NBC news investigative reporter Pei-Sze Cheng ran a story covering the massive data breach. A link to that story is provided here: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/Medical-Records-Mix-up-Investigation-Doctor-Privacy-351060331.html.

The firm represented seven New York City police sergeants who sat for the Promotion to Lieutenant's exam administered by the Department of Citywide Administrative Services ("DCAS"), on April 18, 2015. The sergeants alleged that DCAS failed to provide proper notice of the subject areas that were to be tested on the exam and cited to irregularities in the administration of the exam. The parties reached an agreement where five of the six questions challenged in the lawsuit were stricken from grading. This agreement enabled a number of hard working police sergeants to become eligible for a promotion to lieutenant.

Press:

NY Post, NYPD sergeants, city reach agreement in exam scandal, published June 13, 2016: http://nypost.com/2016/06/13/nypd-sergeants-city-reach-agreement-in-exam-scandal/

NY Daily News, Judge bars NYPD lieutenant promotions for a month amid test cheating allegations, published May 17, 2016: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nypd-lieutenant-promotions-hold-test-results-challenge-article-1.2639949

NY Daily News, Eight NYPD sergeants to file second lawsuit challenging 2015 lieutenants' exam, published May 16, 2016: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-lawsuit-challenge-2015-nypd-lieutenants-exam-article-1.2637887

Washington Times, NYPD sergeants sue over online civil service exam 'cheat sheet', published March 25, 2016: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/25/nypd-sergeants-sue-over-civil-service-exam-cheat-s/

NY Daily News, Nine sergeants sue over NYPD lieutenants' exam cheat sheet, published March 24, 2016: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusive-suit-nypd-lieutenants-exam-cheat-sheet-article-1.2575728

Courthouse News Service, Cops Call Cheating Rampant in NYPD Promotion Test, published March 24, 2016: http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/03/24/cops-call-cheating-rampant-in-nypd-promotion-test.htm

Gothamist, "They Know The Game": Cops Brazenly Cheated On Lieutenants' Exam, Lawsuit Alleges, published March 24, 2016: http://gothamist.com/2016/03/24/cops_cheating_no_way.php

In re Gateway Plaza Residents' Litigation, Index No. 651023/2014

This class action was filed on behalf of current and former Gateway Plaza residents against Marina Towers Associates, L.P., a development company and landlord owned by the LeFrak Organization, and its management company, Gateway Residential Management LLC (collectively "Defendants"). In sum, the action alleges that Defendants breached the warranty of habitability codified in New York Real Property Law § 235-b, breached the lease agreement, and were unjustly enriched as a result of uniform conditions, defects, and deterioration at the Gateway Plaza apartment complex that exposed tenants' apartments to external temperature fluctuations to an unreasonable degree. Plaintiffs are seeking damages in the form of rent abatements, monetary loss, disgorgement, and injunctive relief.

Gateway Plaza is a massive residential apartment complex located in Manhattan's Battery Park City. It is comprised of six, 34-story buildings, totaling 1,881,621 square feet, and 1,712 apartments. The Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint") in this matter alleges that, as a result of various defects and conditions -- and the Landlord’s failure to take appropriate remedial measures -- external air flows freely into the apartments exposing tenants to unreasonably cold external temperatures during the winter months and unreasonably hot temperatures during the summer months. Even with heating and cooling systems running at full capacity, apartment temperatures regularly dip below 50 degrees in the winter and can become oppressively hot in the summer. Because of these conditions, tenants are forced to employ various self-help measures in order to block air flowing through seams in aging and uninsulated window frames and the thru-wall heating systems called "PTAC" units. Tenants report using such things duct tape, plastic sheeting, towels, and pillows. Others have reported sealing off entire rooms in order to cut-down on the exorbitant electricity costs associated with maintaining a tolerable temperature. As further alleged in the Complaint, Defendants have for years ignored violations and complaints about these conditions and have even disregarded a self-commissioned energy audit identifying the same issues and recommending significant structural remedial measures be taken.

Plaintiffs in this action are current and former tenants of Gateway Plaza. They are represented by Newman Ferrara LLP and Safirstein Metcalf LLP, who serve as Co-Lead Counsel, and Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP, which serves as Plaintiffs' Co-Counsel.

CASE UPDATE: On November 13, 2019, the Court granted preliminary approval of a class settlement providing for significant monetary and non-monetary relief for class members. Below are links to the Stipulation of Settlement, Preliminary Approval Order, Notice of Settlement, and Proof of Claim form.

[CLICK HERE TO VIEW PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL ORDER]

[CLICK HERE TO VIEW SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT]

[CLICK HERE TO VIEW NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT]

[CLICK HERE TO VIEW CLAIM FORM]

CONTACT:

Newman Ferrara LLP
Jeffrey M. Norton
jnorton@nfllp.com
1250 Broadway, 27th Fl.
New York, NY 10001
Tel: (212) 619-5400